Resilient Urban Form: A Case Study on Denizli, Gaziantep and Muğla
Keywords:Urban Resilience, Urban Forms, Hierarchy, City Size, Development Type
This study identifies whether the hierarchy, development type, and city size have a crucial effect on resilience in ecological terms. Is there a desirable optimum urban form for resilience? The study aims to answer this question by comparing different types of macroform and density of some selected cities in Turkey.
Denizli, Muğla, and Gaziantep provinces are selected according to the comparability of their population size and urban forms in relation to the greenhouse gas emissions of each city. A retrospective causal comparison method was used in the study. Using the Corine Land Cover Classes program, the change of the artificial surfaces and the city structure between 1990 and 2018 were mapped and detailed graphics were created.
Findings show that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions originating from road transport in Muğla, which has a multi-centered form, were the highest. The surprising result is that Gaziantep has lower GHG emission rate than Denizli although its population is twice the latter. The emission rates of the housing and services sectors were compared with the household size. Gaziantep having the largest household size has the lowest emission rate in this sector. The paper suggests that a hierarchical urban system structure is essential for the resilience of the city to be able to organize itself more effectively, adapt to external changes faster, and create a stronger and more complex structure. City size is an important criterion for low infrastructure cost, efficient use of resources, and capacity to access capital of all kinds. Yet, this criterion may differ in the resilience of the city depending on several factors such as population, area size, and distribution of various urban functions. The development type, on the other hand, is highly effective on GHG emissions as the monocentric cities generate fewer emissions than the polycentric cities.
The GHG reports created for the case areas consisted of different years and different analysis units. This limits the sectors to which cities can be compared.
This article is a detailed and original study in terms of evaluating the resilience of Turkish cities with different morphologies.
Ajibade, I. (2017). Can a future city enhance urban resilience and sustainability? A political ecology analysis of Eko Atlantic city, Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 26, 85-92.
Allan, P., Bryant, M., Wirsching, C., Garcia, D., & Teresa Rodriguez, M. (2013). The influence of urban morphology on the resilience of cities following an earthquake. Journal of Urban Design, 18(2), 242-262.
Altun, A. Ö., & Tezer, A. (2019). A Preliminary Study on Defining Urban Resilience for Urban Planning: The Case of Sultanbeyli, Istanbul. Cilt: 15, 77.
Bahadur, A., & Tanner, T. (2014). Transformational resilience thinking: putting people, power and politics at the heart of urban climate resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 26(1), 200-214.
Béné, C., Mehta, L., McGranahan, G., Cannon, T., Gupte, J., & Tanner, T. (2018). Resilience as a policy narrative: Potentials and limits in the context of urban planning. Climate and Development, 10(2), 116-133.
Brand, F. S., & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the meaning (s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and society, 12(1).
Davidson, D. J. (2010). The applicability of the concept of resilience to social systems: some sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Society and natural resources, 23(12), 1135-1149.
Denizli Metropolitan Municipality. (2019). Denizli İklim Değişikliği Eylem Planı (2016 – 2030).
Fang, C., Wang, S., & Li, G. (2015). Changing urban forms and carbon dioxide emissions in China: A case study of 30 provincial capital cities. Applied energy, 158, 519-531.
Faulkner, J. P., Murphy, E., & Scott, M. (2020). Developing a holistic ‘vulnerability-resilience’model for local and regional development. European Planning Studies, 28(12), 2330-2347.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global environmental change, 16(3), 253-267.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and society, 15(4).
Gaziantep Metropolitan Municipality. (2016). Gaziantep İklim Değişikliği Eylem Planı
Habitat, U.N. (2016). World cities report 2016: Urbanization and development: Emerging futures. Nairobi: United Nations.
Hachem, C. (2016). Impact of neighborhood design on energy performance and GHG emissions. Applied energy, 177, 422-434.
Hoffman, L. M. (2014). From sustainability to resilience: Why locality matters. In From Sustainable to Resilient Cities: Global Concerns and Urban Efforts. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), 1-23.
Irajifar, L., Sipe, N., & Alizadeh, T. (2016). The impact of urban form on disaster resiliency. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment.
Larson, W., & Yezer, A. (2015). The energy implications of city size and density. Journal of Urban Economics, 90, 35-49.
Lee, S., & Lee, B. (2014). The influence of urban form on GHG emissions in the US household sector. Energy Policy, 68, 534-549.
Louf, R., & Barthelemy, M. (2014). How congestion shapes cities: from mobility patterns to scaling. Scientific reports, 4(1), 1-9.
Marks, D., & Lebel, L. (2016). Disaster governance and the scalar politics of incomplete decentralization: Fragmented and contested responses to the 2011 floods in Central Thailand. Habitat International, 52, 57-66.
Mayer, A., Haas, W., & Wiedenhofer, D. (2017). How countries' resource use history matters for human well-being–an investigation of global patterns in cumulative material flows from 1950 to 2010. Ecological Economics, 134, 1-10.
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and urban planning, 147, 38-49.
Muğla Metropolitan Municipality. (2013). Muğla İklim Değişikliği ve Sürdürülebilir Enerji Eylem Planı.
Pickett, S. T., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and urban planning, 69(4), 369-384
Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urbanism, (2014). Muğlaİli 2014 Yılı Çevre Durum Raporu, Denizli Valiliği Çevre ve Şehircilik İl Müdürlüğü. URL: https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/editordosya/Mugla_icdr2014.pdf
Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urbanism, (2016). Denizli İli 2016 Yılı Çevre Durum Raporu, Denizli Valiliği Çevre ve Şehircilik İl Müdürlüğü. URL:http://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/editordosya/Denizli_icdr2016.pdf
Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urbanism, (2018). Gaziantep İli 2018 Yılı Çevre Durum Raporu, Denizli Valiliği Çevre ve Şehircilik İl Müdürlüğü. URL: https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/icerikler/gaz-antep_-cdr2018-20200210112211.pdf
Revi, A., Satterthwaite, D., Aragón-Durand, F., Corfee-Morlot, J., Kiunsi, R. B., Pelling, M., ... & Sverdlik, A. (2014). Towards transformative adaptation in cities: the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment. Environment and Urbanization, 26(1), 11-28.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Romero-Lankao, P., Mehrotra, S., Dhakal, S., Bowman, T., & Ibrahim, S. A. (2015). ARC3. 2 Summary for City Leaders Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network.
Salat, S., & Bourdic, L. (2012). Systemic resilience of complex urban systems. TeMA-Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 5(2), 55-68.
Salat, S. (2017). A systemic approach of urban resilience: power laws and urban growth patterns. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 9(2), 107-135.
Scott, M. (2021). Resilience, Risk, and Policymaking. In COVID-19 and Similar Futures (pp. 113-118). Springer, Cham.
SEGE-2011, (2013). İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması, T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı Bölgesel Gelişme ve Yapısal Uyum Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
SEGE-2017, (2019a), İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Siralamasi Araştirmasi, Kalkınma Ajansları Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını Sayı: 3, Aralık, Ankara.
SEGE-2017, (2019b), İlçelerin Sosyo Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Siralamasi Araştirmasi, Kalkınma Ajansları Genel Müdürlüğü Yayını Sayı: 3, Aralık, Ankara.
Seto, K. C., Dhakal, S., Bigio, A., Blanco, H., Delgado, G. C., Dewar, D., ... & Ramaswami, A. (2014). Human settlements, infrastructure and spatial planning.
Sharifi, A. (2019). Resilient urban forms: A macro-scale analysis. Cities, 85, 1-14.
Sharifi, A., Yamagata, Y., (2018). Resilient Urban Form: A Conceptual Frame-work, in: Resilience-Oriented Urban Planning: Theoretical and Empirical Insights (Y. Yamagata, A. Sharifi, eds.), Springer.
The Rockefeller Foundation and ARUP. (2014). City resilience framework.
TURKSTAT, (2021a), İl ve cinsiyete göre il/ilçe merkezi, belde/köy nüfusu ve nüfus yoğunluğu, 2007-2020.
TURKSTAT, (2021b), Yıllara göre motorlu kara taşıt sayısı, il düzeyi (meta veri).
TURKSTAT, (2021c), İl bazında gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla, iktisadi faaliyet kollarına (A10) göre, cari fiyatlarla, 2004-2019.
TURKSTAT, (2021d), İllere göre ortalama hane halkı büyüklüğü 2008-2020.
UN, (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations: New York, NY, USA.
UNFCCC, (2020). National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990–2018. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/ on 28.01.2021
Yalçıner Ercoskun, O. (2012). A paradigm shift towards urban resilience. In Green and ecological technologies for urban planning: Creating smart cities (pp. 1-16). IGI Global.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.